Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:09:00 +0100 From: Andre Oppermann <andre@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu>, "Jayachandran C." <jchandra@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@bluezbox.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r243631 - in head/sys: kern sys Message-ID: <50F41F8C.5030900@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <50F2F79C.7040109@mu.org> References: <201211272119.qARLJxXV061083@svn.freebsd.org> <ABB3E29B-91F3-4C25-8FAB-869BBD7459E1@bluezbox.com> <50C1BC90.90106@freebsd.org> <50C25A27.4060007@bluezbox.com> <50C26331.6030504@freebsd.org> <50C26AE9.4020600@bluezbox.com> <50C3A3D3.9000804@freebsd.org> <50C3AF72.4010902@rice.edu> <330405A1-312A-45A5-BB86-4969478D8BBD@bluezbox.com> <50D03E83.8060908@rice.edu> <50DD081E.8000409@bluezbox.com> <50EB1841.5030006@bluezbox.com> <50EB22D2.6090103@rice.edu> <50EB415F.8020405@freebsd.org> <CA%2B7sy7CkdoyScOEDEXWuwJxjCS5zTcC8_fu9isCeTFxT8opNJQ@mail.gmail.com> <50F04FE5.7010406@rice.edu> <CA%2B7sy7D=ZjTLirGW3BVGcAu0h8-dWpib%2BYziUjEqegOL9J4adw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmonLoL4E3UsNwx87p2FuHXTbJe7wFs9hBn5Zmr7TTQOSkg@mail.gmail.com> <50F1BD69.4060104@mu.org> <CAJ-VmokjZ_vpcmYeD65pWJN5tfhqn6yDXrFFcXf8dvYc55tQtg@mail.gmail.com> <50F2F79C.7040109@mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13.01.2013 19:06, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > On 1/12/13 10:32 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> On 12 January 2013 11:45, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure if regressing to the waterfall method of development is a good >>> idea at this point. >>> >>> I see a light at the end of the tunnel and we to continue to just handle >>> these minor corner cases as we progress. >>> >>> If we move to a model where a minor bug is grounds to completely remove >>> helpful code then nothing will ever get done. >>> >> Allocating 512MB worth of callwheels on a 16GB MIPS machine is a >> little silly, don't you think? >> >> That suggests to me that the extent of which maxfiles/maxusers/etc >> percolates the codebase wasn't totally understood by those who wish to >> change it. >> >> I'd rather see some more investigative work into outlining things that >> need fixing and start fixing those, rather than "just change stuff and >> fix whatever issues creep up." >> >> I kinda hope we all understand what we're working on in the kernel a >> little better than that. > > Cool! I'm glad people are now aware of the callwheel allocation being insane with large maxusers. > > I saw this about a month ago (if not longer), but since there were half a dozen people calling me an > imbecile who hadn't really yet read the code I didn't want to inflame them more by fixing that with > "a hack". (actually a simple fix). > > A simple fix is to clamp callwheel size to the previous result of a maxusers of 384 and call it a day. > > However the simplicity of that approach would probably inflame too many feelings so I am unsure as > how to proceed. > > Any ideas? I noticed the callwheel dependency as well and asked mav@ about it in a short email exchange. He said it has only little use and goes away with the calloutng import. While that is outstanding we need to clamp it to a sane value. However I don't know what a sane value would be and why its size is directly derived from maxproc and maxfiles. If there can be one callout per process and open file descriptor in the system, then it probably has to be so big. If it can deal with 'collisions' in the wheel it can be much smaller. -- Andre
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50F41F8C.5030900>